Alfie Evans’ case echoes that of Charlie Gard, who died in July 2017 after being taken off life support against his parents’ wishes.

CNA/EWTN News

LIVERPOOL, England — A British court ruled Tuesday that physicians can stop providing life support — against his parents’ wishes — to Alfie Evans, a 21-month-old boy who has an unknown neurological degenerative condition.

Evans is in a “semi-vegetative state” and on life support at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool, where doctors have said further efforts are futile. They went to court to argue that continuing treatment, as his parents wish, is not in the child’s best interest.

Justice Anthony Hayden of the High Court ruled Feb. 20 that “Alfie’s need now is for good quality palliative care. … He requires peace, quiet and stability, so that he may conclude his life as he has lived it.”

“I am satisfied that continued ventilatory support is no longer in Alfie’s interests. This decision I appreciate will be devastating news to Alfie’s parents. I hope they will take time to read this judgment again.”

Alder Hey Children’s Hospital has said it always tries to agree with patients on plans for care: “Our aim is always to try and reach an agreement with parents about the most appropriate care plan for their child. Unfortunately, there are sometimes rare situations such as this where agreement cannot be reached and the treating team believe that continued active treatment is not in a child’s best interests.”

His doctors have described his condition as untreatable, but his parents are requesting their son’s transfer to the Vatican-linked Bambino Gesu Pediatric Hospital in Rome for further diagnosis and possible treatment.

Evans’ case echoes that of Charlie Gard, a terminally ill English infant who died in July 2017 after being taken off life support against his parents’ wishes. Gard was 11 months old, and had been at the center of a month-long legal debate regarding parental rights and human life.

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital treating Gard also went to court to take him off life support, saying his parents’ decision to maintain treatment was not in his interest.

Though Gard’s parents raised more than $1.6 million for his treatment and had offers from hospitals in Europe and the U.S. to give him experimental treatments, a High Court judge ordered that he be taken off life support.

Discussing Gard’s situation with CNA in June 2017, Melissa Moschella, a Catholic University of America philosophy professor, said: “It seems to me completely wrongheaded that the state should be stepping in here when the decision that the parents are making is really aimed at the best interests of the child.”

“It’s not crazy; it’s not abusive; it’s not neglectful. It’s the decision of parents who want to, however they can, give their very sick child a chance for life.”

She said such a decision “should be completely within the prerogative of the parent,” citing the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to Moschella, that declaration “clearly indicates that the parents, not the state, will have primarily responsibility.”

Posted by Leo on Saturday, Feb, 24, 2018 10:07 AM (EST):
For those who want some facts: the High Court judgement (including history and reasons) is here https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf
International experts, requested by the parents, including those from Bambino Gesu (BG) seem to agree with Alfie’s doctors that further treatment would be futile even cruel. Parents have first responsibility for their children but I think most of believe that there are some situations where the state has a duty to override this in the interests of the child eg Jehovah’s Witness parents who refuse to allow their young child to receive a life-saving blood transfusion (because it is against their religion) usually have their wishes overruled by a Court. Where and how to “draw the line” of responsibility is not always easy.
Two major problem leo.
1. There is no such thing as “semi vegetive” state.
2. They don’t have a diagnosis
OBVIOUSLY the biggest problem is this statement. “Professor Cross concluded that Alfie has a progressive, ultimately fatal neurodegenerative condition, most likely a mitochondrial disorder.” Most likely? Seriously? Let me tell the public servants “medical doctors” in UK that you do imaging, physical exam, labs and ultimately a BIOPSY of the tissue. Not too difficult unless you are in UK apparently.

International experts, requested by the parents, including those from Bambino Gesu (BG) seem to agree with Alfie’s doctors that further treatment would be futile even cruel.

The possible transfer to BG would seem to be for research purposes to better understand his possibly unique condition. Whether this would harm Alfie is medically disputed.

Parents have first responsibility for their children but I think most of believe that there are some situations where the state has a duty to override this in the interests of the child eg Jehovah’s Witness parents who refuse to allow their young child to receive a life-saving blood transfusion (because it is against their religion) usually have their wishes overruled by a Court. Where and how to “draw the line” of responsibility is not always easy.

Posted by starTurtle on Friday, Feb, 23, 2018 9:32 PM (EDT):

This article neglects to point out that three medical experts from the Bambino Gesu pediatric hospital had examined Alfie, and had determined that it was completely futile to either try to find a cure or alleviate his seizures.

I can understand if a hospital decides to withhold treatment if it believes such treatment has reached the stage of being completely pointless. Their medical judgement certainly seems sound.

Still, if a reputable medical facility such as Bambino Gesu is willing to intervene, it is extremely troubling that the decision can be taken away from the parents.

Posted by Mark on Thursday, Feb, 22, 2018 10:04 PM (EDT):

This is NOT Charlie Gard who had a rare genetic disorder mitochondrial depletion. The article states that this poor child has a neurologic condition which is unknown. Secondly, what exactly is a “semi vegetative state?” Let me see when I attended medical schools in USA there was no such condition. You know what, there still isn’t. There is vegetative state, persistent vegetative state >1 month OR minimally conscience state. What the difference? Prognosis. Since the clowns in england have no diagnosis the conclusion by the judge is completely medically illogical.

Posted by Leo on Thursday, Feb, 22, 2018 8:37 PM (EDT):

@Donald Link
If this was to do with socialized medicine then the hospital, not the courts, would have made this decision on cost grounds. Note that the hospital went to court to over-rule the parents’ wishes - not vice-versa.

High Court Justice Anthony Hayden gave his reasons which were nothing to do with cost or socialized medicine - it would have been the same judgement even if the parents were paying: “I am satisfied that continued ventilatory support is no longer in Alfie’s interests” and that further attempts at treatment were futile.

US judges have made similar decisions about discontinuing treatment “in the interests of the patient”.

In the US someone in this situation who was not rich enough, or covered by insurance, or government schemes such as VA, Medicare, Medicaid or Obamacare would probably be already dead.

This is a heartbreaking situation and I don’t know all the facts. “parent’s rights” are not absolute, the child’s rights are. Parents have the first responsibility for caring for their children but there are situations where this can be legitimately overruled.

This is why we have to get the government out of healthcare and we need to totally eliminate Obamacare.

Posted by al on Thursday, Feb, 22, 2018 5:31 PM (EDT):

How is it that the life (or death) of a child in the womb is ultimately the MOTHER’S CHOICE - and once the baby is born, the life (or death) of a child is ultimately the STATE’S CHOICE…
How does that make any sense whatsoever…..what is the crazy reasoning here???

Posted by Michael Siddle on Thursday, Feb, 22, 2018 3:01 PM (EDT):

Once the State starts determining who lives and dies, euthanasia for all at the States discretion, will become mandatory.

Posted by Marie Simmons on Thursday, Feb, 22, 2018 1:33 PM (EDT):

This absolutely is evil. How in God’s world do these doctors and politicians think that they, and not the parents can make these decisions for the life of these parents child. I would never stand still for this to no man, doctor or so called esteemed politician. God gave me this child and I will care for him/her to the best that I am able.
It all boils down to MONEY the hospitals and the tax payers.. You can bet if a doctor or a politician had a child in this situation it would be a totally different story.
God Bless these parents and child!!!

Posted by Donald Link on Thursday, Feb, 22, 2018 12:53 PM (EDT):

A side note: This is what you get with socialized medicine, to include socialized “lite” like Obamacare. The patient and family lose control to government dictates.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.